Forum:Mad about you.
Mad: exists; in general subpages in the main namespace are deprecated (because they are basically just the same as regular pages), although Chronology/Volume_n would be a good use. Discuss. — Zarchne 11:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC) :We have "Mad:" now? Woohoo! This is gonna be fun. --mnenyver 12:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC) You said in the other post that you thought the "has-mad" template was visually jarring -- I thought the same at first, preferring a polite link to a big alert box, but now I'm starting to see the value of doing it the other way. I think we should have a big notice saying "post crazy stuff over here -->". It also helps that the current template kinda matches the new wiki skin. Of course, the colors can be changed to fit whatever new skins we happen to use. Ideally, I would simply like a third tab next to "Discussion" up there on the right, but that doesn't seem possible, from what I've read so far. --mnenyver 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC) To my mind, there's the normal wiki, and the Mad: wiki. Reasonable speculation (Olaf Trygvasson, OWII) can still go in the main wiki, probably on the main subject page. Unreasonable speculation (and other spark stuff) will be moved to the Mad: wiki. We don't necessarily need to point people to the Mad: wiki ahead of time; we can invite them in when they do something unreasonable. In any case, I'm # distancing myself as less-qualified to comment on what goes in the main wiki # waiting for Graybeard to recover, and see what he says # and anybody else. Acacia is busy with style sheets and Argadi is working Chronology # trying to get some paid work done, elsewhere # shaping the forums... i.e., I'm planning to create sub-sub-indices to match the subsections of Open Questions #*look into "automating" this with an input/Creation box # more Mad: experimentation, especially for making it easier to jump directly into editing a page — Zarchne 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC) : "Recover"? :-) : I'd say we're basically on a reasonable trajectory here. A formal, Wikia-compatible namespace, with modified tabs to match, is probably desirable, but by no means necessary. The ad-hoc "Mad:" quasi-namespace seems to achieve most of the desired functionality. A pair of templates, to create the link from the parent article and for the resulting speculative article, should make creation/maintenance of the Mad: articles straightforward at the same time as it provides navigational aids to the reader. (There might be some discussion of just what the Mad-article template should contain, but let's work that wiki-style by "improving" it once it's made.) And changes to the MoS should be made, but are not a pre-condition to going this route. I'll try to craft some language when I get a minute. -- that old bearded guy 01:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ::It seems you've missed the point. Hanging out with a bored wikia admin on the wikia IRC help channel, I got Mad: created as a real separate namespace already (based on the discussion in Forum:What goes on a main subject page), which is what inspired me to move Heppler_Wrench/Mad to Mad:Heppler_Wrench (as well as deleting Lightning_staff/Mad) before going to bed in the wee hours of the morning. (Or not so wee, or not so morning, depending on how less West you are... specifically, around 06-25 11:00 UTC.) Please reread what I've written in the last 15 hours in that light. Frankly, I think I'm in favor of you going back to Heppler_wrench/Mad, but I'm not really sure. In any case, if there are more mediawiki features of namespaces that maybe should be turned on for Mad: that haven't been, please suggest them. — Zarchne 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) :::Noted (and thanks), but it doesn't change the basic point. Simple navigational aids are applicable whether the namespace is "official" or not. -- that old bearded guy 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. It appears that something has fragged the article counter used for generating statistics for the main page. I don't know whether that's causally related to creation of the formal "Mad:" namespace, but you might check and see if the Law of Unintended Consequences applies. -- that old bearded guy 03:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC) ::::"Fragged"? As in... Oh, that's interesting. "Fragged" as in "reports 0". There's more to this story, but not for now. — Zarchne 04:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC) :::::So... what's the timeline on getting that fixed? --mnenyver 01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Well, I've reported it here and there, dunno. When Mad: was created another user in the channel specifically warned the admin and me about article count issues, but I thought it was just whether or not articles in Mad: would count as articles, not that the main namespace articles would cease to count. — Zarchne 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Times are US/Pacific on 2008-06-27 (Friday): ::::::14:59 Hey, JSharp, do you suppose you could look at Girl Genius' ? ::::::15:00 zarchne, I am actually :) ::::::15:00 Sannse asked me to take a look ::::::15:00 Thanks. How did she and I break it? ::::::15:00 didn't.. just need to reinit stats :) ::::::15:09 zarchne, it should be done soon according to one of our Engineering staff ::::::15:13 zarchne, rather automatically when the stat refresh happens ::::::I'm just checking in saying I know that it's still not fixed. Not sure when I'll get around to bugging the Wikia staff again; someone else is welcome to post on w:Talk:Community Team and/or User talk:Toughpigs and/or IRC (freenode channel #wikia). ⚙Zarchne 09:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC) This isn't working. I think it's time for us to swallow our collective pride and acknowledge that creation of the formal "Mad:" namespace is causing a lot more trouble than opportunity. I see no evidence that it's helping organize the site and convey information, and it is quite clear that there are any number of architecture problems that the formal space introduces, for example the inability to keep track of how many articles there are. I vote we abandon this as a failed experiment -- hey, mad scientists are supposed to have occasional failed experiments -- and try to restore the namespaces defined via MediaWiki to the default. It will still be possible to have Mad articles; just create "Mad:Beetleburg," etc., and use the templates and categories for navigation. It's time to cut our losses and do it this way, methinks. -- that old bearded guy 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :But... but...! We have our own namespace and it's mad! *sniffle* You're probably right. I really do feel that alternate versions of existing articles are an absolute necessity for this wiki. And if it's going to create havoc with the site architecture, it's probably best to let it go. By the way, I think the ":" might be a future source of issues, either causing confusion over a faux namespace or becoming a source of code problems. I advocate the original "Beetleburg/Mad" suggestion if the new namespace is eliminated. --mnenyver 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ::::Did you mean "I really do not feel that..."? At first I was thinking "oh, she gets it", then I realized just adding the negation makes the sentence make more sense. At any rate, see below. ⚙Zarchne 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :::::No, I meant exactly what I wrote. --mnenyver 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ::No problem with Beetleburg/Mad, etc., as the navigation method; that actually works better from a breadcrumb perspective. -- that old bearded guy 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :::Oh, good point. --mnenyver 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :Yea, verily, etc., except I'm opposed to actually deleting the Mad: namespace. :(to Graybeard's original post in this section:) I don't know any of that. If we've found a bug in MediaWiki (which I don't know that we have)... well, I'm kind of proud of it, sorry. I want some feedback from Wikia, either that they've really fixed it, or "Don't do that, then". There is a more fundamental question about how to deal with tangential information of various degrees (and probably what the purpose of the wiki is, as whole) which I think we've only begun to address. I think it's much too early to declare defeat on the Mad: namespace. That having been said, if you want to move Mad:Heppler wrench back to "Heppler wrench/Mad", Mad:Baron Klaus Wulfenbach to "Baron Klaus Wulfenbach/Mad" (and maybe others as appropriate) and change the Has-Mad template to point to the /Mad subpage... I'm all for it, really. (I'd be surprised if anyone except Mnenyver would object, and I'm not sure now what she was so excited about in the first place.) I probably would even do it myself if you ask me to; I just don't want to restep on your toes. You even have my permission to comment out or otherwise disable all my transclusions in Mad: articles (for now) and see if that fixes the NUMBEROFARTICLES issue (we would have to leave it like that for a while, but I'm sure you'll not see that as a loss). In short, let us to agree to disagree about "Mad"-ness as productively as possible? ⚙Zarchne 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Moving on... OK, I have redirected all of the Mad: pages that I could find, so that they now point to (foo)/Mad rather than Mad:(foo). (There is one exception: Mad:The Madness Place, and I have no idea what to do with it, because I'm completely baffled as to why it was created to begin with.) Template:Has-Mad has also been amended. In time I will delete the Mad:(foo) pages unless someone sees a good reason not to. I'll also create a Template:Mad for the Mad articles themselves that makes it clear that they are Mad articles and also points toward a to-be-created Category:Mad articles; this should be straightforward. Two bits of work will then remain, one of which I (and everyone else) can work on (and everyone's help will be appreciated), the other being serious admin stuff. * We really need some serious thought about a Manual of Style for the Mad articles. We shouldn't over-prescribe, but some structure is needed, or they'll just descend into chaos. Anybody want to volunteer lab space for this? I'll do it if nobody else will, but it's something where everyone's input is going to be valuable. * We need closure on the namespace issue. As I've said, I personally would strongly prefer trying to roll back our defined namespaces to what they were before the well-intentioned, but thus far disastrous, effort to get a Mad: namespace set up. Zarch, it's good that we've identified a possible MediaWiki bug, but this isn't a MediaWiki beta-test site; it's the Girl Genius wiki, and making that resource useful to readers (and authors) trumps debugging MediaWiki, IMO. So a rollback strikes me as best. (BTW, I am not conservative either by politics or by leanings; I'm coming from a reasoned, and reasoning, position on this, not a temperamental knee-jerk.) However, I can imagine there might be reasons to keep the thing around, although I can't imagine what they are. If you see one, please enlighten me. We're moving forward here. Let's discuss the outstanding issues, then put this to bed. -- that old bearded guy 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC) :*nodding along* My vote is for abandoning the namespace and using sub pages when needed. I wouldn't be opposed to letting the custom namespace stay just for Z to have a place to experiment, as long as it didn't cause bugs with the site. I'd prefer that a live wiki was not used as a guinea pig, not if we intend to be a useful resource and look halfway professional. (And ditto on the calm, reasoned thing here.) --mnenyver 06:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ::Well, I still oppose requesting that the namespace be deleted. We don't actually know that it is causing problems with the site. AIUI, many other Wikia sites use multiple namespaces without issues. I agree that it is a logical hypothesis that the problem with the NUMBEROFARTICLES magic word is related to the creation of the namespace, but we have no guaranty that whatever actions the Wikia admin(s) take if they agree to remove the namespace would fix the problem. Even if it would, I still find it (the problem) amusing and your sense of "professionalism" a little absurd. But I work with free software (which MediaWiki is) all the time, so I perhaps I have a very different perspective. We need to get something back from Engineering, and it's best if we leave things more or less as they are until then. If you feel the "0 articles" on the front page reflects badly on yourself or Studio Foglio (rather than just Wikia, as I see it) then remove it to somewhere else for now. I also don't feel there's a particular rush to make something happen; this wiki stood completely empty for 2 years until I threw up a text file or two; Kaja Foglio linked to it on her own initiative without us even asking; and it's inherent in a wiki to have rough edges. ⚙Zarchne 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Purpose of Mad: (from User talk:Mnenyver#Secret Blueprints Move) :As for Mad:, I thought we had consensus that it was supposed to be for alternate versions of articles, discussion, and theory. The whole idea started because we wanted canonical stuff separated from fan input. If we want the Secret Blueprints whole and complete, then they should go in the main namespace. Was I incorrect in assuming we'd agreed on what Mad: is for? --mnenyver 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I created this Forum topic in order to discuss how Mad: (and subpages, actually) will be used. I wouldn't have created the Forum if I didn't think there would be differences of opinion, but apparently no one else did, because little discussion about it per se had actually taken place before Graybeard voted to delete it. To my thinking, Mad: is for stuff that doesn't belong in any previously existing namespace. That's pretty much all there is to it. Frankly, a lot of the stuff that Mnenyver and Graybeard (I think) are going to move to /Mad from now on — it seems to me that stuff could go as sections of the main article. In any case, it is agreed, then, that normal speculation can go in the main namespace. (Maybe even the normal speculation that the normal speculation inspires can go in /Mad/Mad? That may be too mad an idea. I can't tell, though; that's part of the point.) My concept of Mad: is that no idea is too mad to put in Mad:. I don't want Mad: articles to be included in the count of normal articles because, they're not. They're '''Mad:!' As an example, I think we could agree that we don't want it to be the case that if all the Secret Blueprints hosted here were suddenly deleted that it would disrupt the wiki as defined by the main namespace. By moving them to Mad: and generally failing to acknowledge the existence of Mad: in the main namespace we accomplish this. The difference between main and Mad: is not canon vs non-canon but "defensible" vs "monstrosity". Contrariwise, I still think (but what do I know?) that there a place for information about ''The Secret Blueprints, The Works, and other Category:Published Work in the main namespace; it seems defensible to refer to their existence, even if they're not part of the canon. In any case, I resist arbitrary proscriptions on Mad:, but I support efforts to insulate the general public from it. ⚙Zarchne 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC) :At the risk of offending, the main problem seems to be that you're not understanding why this idea originally started. I would like to point out Talk:Rinja, then a careful comparison of Baron Klaus Wulfenbach and Mad:Baron Klaus Wulfenbach to see the idea in action. I would also like to put the idea out there that you can create pages under your own user namespace and include whatever content you like. That seems to be the most appropriate place for many of your suggestions anyway. It won't even interfere with article count, if that's something that concerns you. :As of right now, though, I think it's okay to say that Mad: is not working as intended. I'm taking a break from the whole subject and I'll just stick to pruning cruft from articles where I find it. (I'll reply on the Secret Blueprints issue another time.) :--mnenyver 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "It's not the same." To my mind, marking off an article, however outré, as "mine" defeats the concept of a wiki. I put stuff up here for other people to fiddle with. A wiki is a collective sandbox; that's the essential feature that has me involved with it. Now, I can see there being some value in restricting what sort of material belongs in a wiki created for a particular purpose; cordoning off a section of the sandbox (or beach) and saying "we're building a little model of our town here, please don't put a medieval castle in it." And I admit that my tastes can be a little baffling. (Neal Stephenson once said (in "In the Beginning was the Command Line") that if someone ever created a product that he found to be exactly right, it would be doomed to failure, since he is a marketing demographic of one. Actually, I know that's hyperbole, and so I am a little surprised to find a failure to appreciate it among ardent fans of Girl Genius. I guess it's one thing to read about mad scientists...) Hence, I'm in favor of allowing the main namespace be "fit for public consumption". But I still want the rest of the beach to be there. That's what Mad: is; it's the rest of the wiki that doesn't fit into your conception (whoever you are) of what belongs in the wiki... or what belongs there yet, perhaps; maybe something will come out of Mad: that we will want to move into the main namespace. As far as I am concerned, Mad: (with home page Mad:The Madness Place) is the real Girl Genius wiki. I specifically thank User:Mnenyver and User:Graybeard for helping me come up with the idea for it and its implementation. I offer apologies that they didn't understand what I was doing when I requested its creation and encouraged them to use it. Hopefully Wikia can get the bugs worked out, but I feel that's properly out of our hands. "Larry Wall" (as if) has spoken. ⚙Zarchne 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC) :Mad: being the real wiki seems to conflict with the home page of the wiki which says we "strive for utmost accuracy and being absolutely, positively non-biased in our writing". Argadi 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ::Argadi: That was meant to be silly -- did it read wrong? Maybe I need my sarcasm goggles... :::I'm probably having trouble with my own goggles on this point? ::Zarchne: Please read this in the friendly spirit of cooperation in which it is intended. I'm just trying to explain my position. After this, unless further damage is done, I will consider the debate closed on my part. I'm really going to try to make this my last reply on the subject. ::I think you're forgetting a basic principle of a wiki, and that's consensus. We do not have consensus. This is a group project. As for "mad" being the "real" wiki -- does this mean you want to go make your own mad wiki? That might be better done under a brand new Wikia wiki, not this one. ::Me, and at least one other person, saw a need and had an idea we wanted to try out. You took that idea and ran with it, but didn't seem to understand what we were trying to do. We wanted to separate fan ideas from what's actually in the comic. You, as far as I can tell, thought Mad: meant "prove how crazy we are" because we're crazy mad scientists, which kinda ruined the original idea. We wanted more clear. You wanted less clear. This is why I suggested that experiments like that be moved to user subpages. ::While it's true that we don't know that the namespace is the cause of the bug in the article count, at this point, that bug just seems to be the cherry on top of a big ol' dung sundae of confusion and frustration on all sides. If for no other reason, I'd like to see it go away in the interest of maintaining the peace. I really hope you agree, because you know what happens when sparks can't keep peace among themselves -- don't make him come over here. Oy. ::--mnenyver 21:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) :::As of this posting, I haven't changed my position. I think you and Graybeard should continue as you are and stop worrying about anything that might or might not go on in Mad:. The namespace itself should be enough of a separation between "The Girl Genius Wiki" and "The Girl Genius Wiki: Extreme Edition." ⚙Zarchne 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) New discussion - Dec 08 While, I, too, don't agree with Zarchne's position, I think it's entirely possible there may be merit in it that we're missing. Having found the wiki as it is, though, with /Mad instead of Mad: for good technical reasons, and with the Mad pages used for the function they are used for, it all seems to make sense to me. Newcomers to Girl Genius, who want the facts about a character, place, or thing in the story can go to the main article about it. They will see an informal, but fairly objective, article which will help them understand the comic. Some trivia, and some subjects about which there is controversy and speculation, will be there too. More off-the-wall fan theories are in the associated Mad page. So far, this makes sense. Except when they're in Forum: Fan Theories instead, or in the Discussion page for the page. That's where it gets messy. Also, since Forum: is an independent namespace, indeed that does seem to illustrate why another namespace isn't a good way to make associated pages. I've been thinking - but I think now that it *is* a Mad idea, not a good one - that pages might have a /Wild associated page for Almost Certainly Irrelevant Outside Information. Because this kind of associated information is not of debatable accuracy (so it doesn't belong on a Mad page) but of debatable relevance. It would probably be better to extend the purpose of a Mad page than to make things more complicated. Since the Mad pages currently only include information not already on the regular pages, they can't stand on their own as an alternate GG Wiki. But a first step in making this possible would be, I suppose, to fully categorize all the Mad pages. With categories like Characters/Mad, Devices/Mad, Geography/Mad, and so on and so forth. Would this make sense, to allow a "fun" entry point to the wiki for people who want to learn about the fan theories, and already know the basics? --Quadibloc 23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Upon further reflection, I have come up with a use for the Mad: namespace which I think somewhat reflects what Zarchne was getting at (although he may well be the first to say I have misunderstood him completely). I propose that the Mad: namespace be given the following function, which is clearly distinct from the function of /Mad auxiliary pages: to serve as a Moral Alternative to Edit War. So the hierarchy would now be: * For ongoing discussion of fan theories, there is the Forum: Fan Theories page and the discussions within it. * For presentation of specific common fan theories, there is the /Mad page associated with a given topic. * For a "minority report" version of a page, which embodies a view as fact which does not reflect the wiki consensus, but is believed by its editor to be reasonable as fact, a copy of the page incorporating the relevant edits will be in the Mad: namespace counterpart of that page. I propose to implement this, if it is acceptable - this is a far-reaching change, so I think it appropriate to ask fellow contributors, especially the admins, before proceeding, through the following steps: * Add a reference to the "Has-Mad-Ns" template to the Madness Place page (which has a Mad: counterpart). * Edit the Has-Mad-Ns requested template starting from a copy of Has-Mad. * Add a reference to the "Has-Mad-Ns" template to the Smoke Knight page. * Verify that this creates Mad:Smoke Knight as a requested page, and create an alternate version of the page that reflects my idiosyncratic opinion that of course Veilchen is a Smoke Knight... The Mad: namespace could then also serve as a staging area for edits to pages which their authors believe might be considered controversial, and which could then be moved to the regular page if general approval is obtained. --Quadibloc 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :Here's my reply, if I understood what you meant up there... :* Zarchne has plans for Mad:, though I'm not sure what they are. (I believe he's taking a break for holiday activities at the moment, but I'd talk with him about this.) :* I'm not sure what you mean about "wild" facts that wouldn't be appropriate for a mad page. Could you provide an example? :* Pages that are meant to represent a single editor's position belong under the User: namespace. Links to those User articles should be put on the /Mad page. See Baron Klaus Wulfenbach/Mad for an example. :* The difference between a forum and a mad page is that forum is for back-and-forth discussion. :* Yes, I think we should absolutely make use of subcategories within Category:Mad. :I hope this clarifies things a bit. :) --mnenyver 03:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :: Wild is a separate topic, but basically I'm thinking of trivia of very marginal relevance. Maybe it could go on the /Mad pages too, but it seems like that isn't their purpose, and by making it a different subtype, people looking for fan theories could go to one place, people looking for trivia could go to the other place. :: On another topic, the Open Questions page is sort of disappointing to me, because most of the entries don't link to any theories or discussion about the questions - and editing that page is not the appropriate way to create a page for that. :: I'm sure I don't fully understand Zarchne's plans for the Mad: namespace. I do indeed want his input too. Basically, I think that what I'm proposing involves taking a first step towards what he is looking for. One starts with a main page, and creates a /Mad page with Has-Mad... FULLPAGENAME/Mad, and, analogously, one can start with a main page, and create a Mad: page with Has-Mad-Ns... Mad:PAGENAME (so that we don't get illegal pages like Mad:Template:Your Page Here). :: Basically, given that there has only been one incipient edit war here, I felt that it wasn't too likely that there would be multiple users wanting to create alternate versions of the same page. (If there are different things they disagree with on the main page, they could both apply their edits to the Mad: page; it's still expected that people will approach the wiki in a constructive spirit, even though this gives them a chance to present their slant in the context of the full page.) The most obvious type of alternate version is one that is written from a different take on the topic, but there are other possibilities that would be more fun. While this can't be done just yet, maybe someday someone could create a Mad:Vrin page... that is written in Geistersprache. :: But you have given me an idea. If we did get to the point where individual users wanted to present their own versions of selected pages, I suppose I could create a Has-Userversion template... --Quadibloc 07:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :: Another possibility for the Mad: version of a page, which would partially address one of your concerns, would be to have it be a version of the page with "yellow stickies" signed by individual users on it. But this doesn't address another concern; a page is split into two versions because of a controversial point... and then, later on, uncontroversial additions are made to the main page. The problem of copying them over arises; this is the old code fork problem. :: So I'll agree that this may take more thought. --Quadibloc 08:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) ::: Zarchne's Mad: thoughts ::: The policy (more as common law than statute) has been that clearly relevant trivia and unavoidable speculation can go on the main page (we don't use the term "NPOV", but a concept of that sort applies), but once it starts to veer off too far (which is a subjective judgment, of course) then the /Mad page and Has-Mad template are available to continue the article. This is something like putting things "behind a cut". The /Mad|Has-Mad system was created (really, by Graybeard, with Mnenyver's enthusiastic support) so that I (as well as anyone else who felt like it) could put down whatever random thoughts I had on something — in an academic style, like the main page — without crudding up the main page with stuff that might confuse or mislead a new reader. Anyway, there's not much (FLW) that can't go in /Mad as long as it's written in an acceptable style and somehow pertains to the root (main) page. There's no need to get too protective of /Mad. ::: The creation of the Mad: namespace was motivated by the identical circumstance... not a similar circumstance, but at the same time that Graybeard experimented with /Mad, I got Mad: created to use instead — Mnenyver seemed to think this would be a cool way to go. There were a few problems. One, I reworked Graybeard's template and test page to use Mad: instead of /Mad and he didn't like me messing with it... Two, the staffer who created it for me made an error that took a long time for them (several members of wikia staff) to recognize, leaving our article count reported as zero. Of course, we don't work with the mediawiki software as server administrators, so all we knew was that something having to do with Mad: was making us look bad. (I considered this a very minor problem but Mnen and GB seemed to take it much more seriously.) Incidentally, it's still the case that pages in Mad: do not count toward the "legitimate content" article count; this was intentional and part of my request. :::Three, my frustration with the process of: load page, load discussion page, load edit of one, load edit of the other... all these page loads were bothering me at the time, and Mnenyver was using the word "alternate" (rather than "companion", "continuation", "auxiliary") for the kind of page that is now "/Mad" but would have been Mad: ... anyway, somehow I got the idea that the best thing would be to create, for every regular page, an alternate (parallel, replacement) page in Mad: that would transclude the main article, the discussion, maybe relevant forums, as well as containing the other speculation that I wanted to do, covering two rocks (the frustration with loading as well as people complaining about my edits) with one page, as it were. I would (have) put edit boxes for the various transcluded page (like "show preview" provides), to save another step, if there were a way to do it (but I didn't find one). Of course, this isn't what Mnenyver and GB had in mind for the Mad page (they were only expecting the speculative content itself), and it wasn't appreciated, either. I probably got the idea before I even had Mad: created, which would be why I asked for Mad: not to be included in the article count. At any rate, the motivation for pages labeled Mad (from my narcissistic point of view) is that I should be able to put what I want into them without disturbing the Main wiki, reducing exasperation, but... it sure didn't work out that way. ::: Oh, there was also Four: I thought that moving the version of the Secret Blueprints that we (used to) host into Mad: would be a compromise between having it as part of the wiki proper (the "Main wiki") and just deleting it flat out. Again, the idea being that there's the content that we're sure about and the stuff (Mad:) that maybe doesn't really belong. But, again, this was resisted, being considered a meaningless distinction and probably a misuse of Mad: per se (being conceived as being created for speculative content related to a given page), as well. ::: So... I still don't think any of my ideas were wrong, but I didn't see that it was worth fighting about them, either... I had (and have) other things to do (other battles to fight...), and I do want people to participate. I always have many more ideas than I can carry out or even convey well (or at all?), and the primary one vis-à-vis this wiki is that it should be a resource for people trying to find information about Girl Genius, especially the "canon", which seems to coincide with what most other editors here expect. ::: Anyway, here I still am. /Mad works for the speculative content; eventually wikia staff found the error affecting the article count; Foglios published a pdf of the Secret Blueprints and Mnenyver went ahead and deleted our (Corgi's, IIRC) version; and I decided what I really should do is get a bot running (and learn some Python in the process) and since then (even though neither actually happened) the page loads haven't been bothering me as much. My fundamental idea about the Mad: namespace is still that it is for "alternate" (or "alternative") Girl Genius wiki pages, however someone might conceive them. So far no one has complained (that I've noticed) about the stub article Mad:Loki or against the idea that an article about a review of a non-''Girl Genius'' work (such as The Anubis Gates) from the perspective of a GG reader (or reader's''') would be appropriate for Mad:. I'd like to think I personally would be open to even wackier (if not "wacker") ideas if someone thought of them. The ideas of using Mad: for a communal work-in-progress version or a minority report are certainly fine with me. ::: The one thing (so to speak) that keeps coming to mind is the concept of a dialogue-vs-exposition lifecycle of a page. We have the main pages for exposition and the Forum: pages for dialogue but there's no easy commerce between them. This is what your "sticky note" idea is meant to address, I think. Creating /Forum articles would be another possibility. Or just stop restricting Talk: pages to meta discussion, and allow them (perhaps after a heading) to include discussion about the subject instead of just the page. (This already happens, but obviously we think it's not quite right, and when it does sometimes we feel the need to put a link to the Talk: page from the main page.) Creating a new "Article-by-Article" or similar forum with (up to) one topic for each main namespace page (or maybe even section thereof) is another possibility. It would be cool if the corresponding Foo: (or especially /Foo) could appear as a tab like the corresponding Talk: does, but I don't know that it's possible. A Has-Forum template should be no problem, though. ::: Anyway, I spent much more time writing this little essay than I meant to. ::: ⚙Zarchne 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :::: Thank you very much for replying. I see that I did get the wrong idea, then, by the fact that Mad: pages would transclude their counterparts. My notion was that while I agree with Mnenyver that there's no reason to transclude the whole wiki, Mad: would be used for transclusions of the odd page. :::: In my idea, the Mad: version of a page would be a let-your-hair-down version of the primary page. Sometimes one that's just perhaps a tad less objective, and sometimes a funny version. But perhaps the informality already present in this wiki is quite enough for most contributors. --Quadibloc 14:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC) ::::: One last comment before I dash off for parts unknown: ::::: My original concerns, which Zarchne stated fairly well, was that he didn't, at first, seem to grok what we were trying to do, which was have all extended trivia and speculation collected neatly in one place. That misunderstanding seems to have been resolved. ::::: I actually like the idea of this use of Mad:. I would prefer that people put their personal writings under User:, but if the idea is to encourage multiple people to edit the same document, then a common namespace is more appropriate. ::::: My one objection -- and this is where we need further discussion -- is that having /Mad and Mad: will cause a great deal of confusion and alienate people. If the two are merged, I would like to make sure that we don't lose the function that the /Mad pages currently serve. ::::: I love the ideas of yellow stickies. I'd be willing to do the code for this, once I have a moment. ::::: I'd really like to get some neutral parties weighing in on this discussion. If they can follow it. (And Greybeard - are you still out there? I would like everyone to be on the same page, no nasty surprises.) ::::: My primary goal on this wiki is to ensure that everything is ''clear and useful. We should strive for easily understood articles, no visual clutter or gibberish, with speculation clearly marked or moved to other pages as appropriate. Remember, we're linked from the official site, which means that we may attract complete novices who have never heard of a wiki or how to use one. We may be visited by anyone from schoolchildren to the Foglio's potential business partners, so usability issues are critical. ::::: --mnenyver 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)